HL Deb 29 February 1872 vol 209 cc1133-41
EARL GRANVILLE

, who had been summoned from the House, returned and said,—Your Lordships will excuse my interruption of this discussion. I have just been informed that a boy of 18 or 19 ran into the garden of Buckingham Palace as the Queen entered, followed the carriage to the door, which is at a short distance, and presented an old-fashioned pistol within a foot of Her Majesty's head. The Queen bowed her head, and the boy was seized. I am informed that the pistol was not loaded, and it is believed that the object of the boy was to compel Her Majesty by fear to sign a Fenian document which he had in his hand. The Queen showed the greatest courage and composure, and immediately commanded Colonel Hardinge to come down to the Houses of Parliament in order to prevent exaggerated rumours and alarm being spread. I will refrain from entering into any details of which I am not in full possession, and I will further refrain from making any observations on the contrast of this odious although contemptible attempt with the magnificent and unprecedented display of affectionate loyalty on Tuesday.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

I cannot allow this statement to be made without expressing my joy at the failure of this miserable attempt, which was clearly of a contemptible character, seeing that, as the noble Earl told us, there does not appear to have been powder and shot in the pistol. At all events, it has had one effect—it has given an additional proof to the country of the courage which has sustained Her Majesty on this as on all other occasions. I cannot but reiterate the feeling of gratification my noble Friend has given utterance to at the magnificent display of loyalty witnessed this week, and the pride we all must feel in the reception Her Majesty met with. It is an enormous satisfaction to set off the magnificent demonstration of such a concourse of people against an event such as that just reported to us.

Consideration of the Bill in Committee resumed.

Clause 14 (Surrogates to issue marriage licences subject to the rules and orders).

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY moved that the clause be omitted.

THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

was understood to say that he could not accede to the noble Earl's proposal. The noble Earl had proposed clauses which, in his opinion, were entirely wrong, and he had therefore proposed other clauses in substitution, and upon the relative value of the two proposals it would be for the House to decide.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

desired to say a word or two in reference to the appointment of one Judge for the two Provinces, to whom his right rev. Brother (the Bishop of Winchester) ob- jected on the score of expense; but it exceeded even his right rev. Brother's ability to show that the two Judges he recommended would cost less than one. One of the anomalies which this Bill sought to remedy was that which existed in the Province of York, where the appeal from the Judge of the Archbishop of the diocese was to the Judge of the Archbishop of the Province, the two Judges being one and the same man—in other words, the appeal was from the Chancellor of York to the Chancellor of York. Now, it was obvious that in every good system of judicature the Judge of appeal must be other than the Judge of the first instance, and therefore such a change as the Bill proposed was obviously required. In the Province of Canterbury the appeal from the Vicar General, or rather the Commissary of the Diocese, as to the Dean of Arches. In approving of the course proposed, he did not commit himself to the amount of salary to be given; but it should be such as would command the services of an efficient Judge. His right rev. Brother had objected to the financial basis on which the Bill was founded; but every Bill of the kind must rest on such a basis. And what did his right rev. Brother propose to substitute for it? Nothing. As far as he could see, the only difference between his right rev. Brother's view and that of the Bill was as to whether the fees were to be collected as fees, and paid to the Judge, or whether they were to be paid into a general fund out of which the Judge was to receive a fixed salary. Now, the whole tendency of legislation in both Houses of Parliament of late years had been to give a preference to salaries as compared with the unsatisfactory system of remuneration by fees. The number of cases before the Judge of the Arches was very few, and there need be no apprehension that they would increase to any great extent; yet it was important that the Judge should have so much time at his disposal as to ensure that causes would not be put off from month to month. In fact, the Court should sit de die in diem. He saw no objection to the same person acting as Judge of Appeal for both Provinces of Canterbury and York.

THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

said, he objected to the proposals of the Bill on the ground that they were not sufficiently simple, and he should, therefore, move that after Clause 14 the following clauses be inserted:— The archbishop may, if he think fit, sit in the provincial court as the judge in the place of the official principal thereof: Provided always, that the archbishop shall not sit in the provincial court as the judge thereof during the hearing of any suits of which he the said archbishop may be the promoter, or which are brought against clerks who hold preferment in the patronage of the said archbishop; provided also, that when the archbishop shall sit in the provincial court as judge thereof the official principal of the said court shall sit as the assessor of the said archbishop. The bishop may, if he think fit, sit in the diocesan court as the judge in the place of the official principal thereof: Provided always, that the bishop shall not sit in the diocesan court as the judge thereof during the hearing of any suits of which he the said bishop may be the promoter, or which are brought against clerks who hold preferment in the patronage of the said bishop; provided also, that when the bishop shall sit in the diocesan court as judge thereof the official principal of the said court shall sit as the assessor of the said bishop.

LORD CAIRNS

said, the point at issue was whether a single Judge should be nominated for the two Provinces. The question was surrounded by very great difficulties; but he admitted the theoretical advantages of having a Judge of that description. It was highly important that the office should be filled by a person learned in and accustomed to the administration of the law, and if the Judge were appointed with the approval of the Queen, he might be safely intrusted with the powers ordinarily given to Judges in Her Majesty's Courts. Next came the question how he was to be paid. Whatever their Lordships might decide, it was pretty certain that the other House would regard their interference as a breach of their privileges; and, if so, it would be useless for their Lordships to pass these clauses. As to the right rev. Prelate's proposal to put the fees into a common fund, out of which the Judge's salary should be paid, he would ask where was the fund to come from, and what certainty was there that that source of payment would be always available? If it were proposed to take the fees for special marriage licences, and to put those fees, and those fees only, into a fund out of which the sum for the Judge's salary should be drawn, he should not have the least objection to the plan; but he must altogether demur to visitation and other fees being devoted to such a purpose.

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

said, he was convinced that the nomination of one Judge for both the Arch dioceses would be the most simple and effectual method of meeting the difficulty, though he was quite as ready and anxious as anyone to get rid of the fees now levied. His proposal was that the Provincial Judge should be appointed by the Sign Manual of the Queen, and should have all the powers of the Judges of one of Her Majesty's superior Courts of Law, that the Archbishop sitting with that Judge should have these powers, but the Archbishop sitting alone should not. The proposition of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Winchester) was that every Bishop should exercise the full authority of a Judge—a proposition which exceeded any power ever possessed by Bishops in mediaeval times. He could not believe their Lordships would accept this Amendment. The clause against which the Amendment was directed was the clause of the Select Committee. He heartily endorsed it, and took the whole responsibility of it upon himself. He appealed to the two Archbishops, who sat on this Committee, whether any objection had been raised to the clause in the Committee.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said, that the noble Earl was in error when he represented this clause as having the sanction of the whole of the Select Committee. The Committee consisted of 15 Members, and this clause, so far from being adopted unanimously, was not adopted by even a numerical majority of the Committee. The Archbishop of Canterbury had claimed the Archbishop of York as a party to the clause; but the most rev. Primate who presided over the Province of York was no party to it, having deliberately left the room before the division was taken.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, as the Bill was one which affected the internal arrangements of the Church of England it was thought, in the first instance, that if the right rev. Prelates could themselves agree upon a measure which would be effectual to correct existing grievances with reference to the administration of ecclesiastical law in the Ecclesiastical Courts, it would be better to leave it to them to prepare the Bill and present it to the House with the weight which their common consent would give it. But it appeared that this consent was not to be had on the part of that body; and it fell to the noble Earl who had taken so very active a part in this matter to produce a measure of his own, calculated, as he thought, to effect the purpose. A most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) then brought forward a Bill—not professing to do so with the general consent of the right rev. Bench—but a Bill which he thought would be effective and produce the same results as those arrived at by the noble Earl in a somewhat different mode. The House referred both Bills to a Select Committee, which had very patiently considered them. He was not a member of the Committee, and could only judge of the result by what he saw in their Report. The Committee, then, it appeared, had agreed on a Bill in substance such as was brought in by the noble Earl. The Government having considered the Bill did not think it right to oppose the Bill; they thought it should be maturely considered, reserving to themselves, however, the power of saying how the money should be raised for the payment of the Judge. They approved the principle of the Bill—namely, that there should be a single Judge; that he should be nominated as proposed by the Bill, and approved by the Crown; but as to the emoluments to be provided for the Judge, they thought these more properly fell under the cognizance of the other House of Parliament. When they were told, and very truly, as one of the difficulties of the case, that there was scarcely business to occupy a single Judge, it occurred to him that it might be made part of the duty of the Judge appointed to pay some attention to Ecclesiastical Bills passing through Parliament. With regard to the mode of remuneration, he certainly had great objection to paying the Judge from marriage licence fees. He should be extremely sorry to see these fees, which a Commission had unanimously recommended should be reduced from £2 to 5s., relied on for the payment of the Judge. But it was clear that it should be left to the other House to settle the Judge's salary, and the source from which it should be paid.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

said, it was self-evident that the appointment of a Judge must be followed by his payment; and he must protest against the doctrine of the noble and learned Lord that the Members of the Government in that House might agree to the appointment of a Judge, who if appointed must of course be paid, and that then the Members of the Government in the other House were to decide how the Judge was to be paid, and whence his salary was to be obtained. That was so extraordinary a proposition that he should suggest that the consideration of this question should be adjourned until the Government made up their minds as to how the Judge was to be paid.

EARL GRANVILLE

observed that the Bill was not a Government Bill, and it had gone through the ordeal of a Committee of their Lordships' House, where this very point was raised. The noble Earl opposite tried to raise objections; but he found himself in a minority of one.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

remarked that the Government, as a rule, affected to have some interest in public questions and matters coming before Parliament; but while prepared to support this Bill, they declined to express an opinion upon its fundamental principle, or to say whether the Judge ought to be paid. Of course, if the Judge was to be paid by salary the other House would have to decide the amount of his salary, and the fund out of which it should be paid. The only proposal before the House was that the Judge should be paid by fees; although that source of income might at any time disappear. Their Lordships would be merely exposing themselves to the ridicule of the public and the House of Commons if they went through the process of creating an elaborate machinery without providing funds by which the officers were to be paid: and they would justly incur ridicule if after ascertaining that there were no such funds they sent the Bill down to the other House for it to find out what their Lordships could not discover. Their conduct would be still more open to comment when they had received what was practically a warning that the Government was merely passing the Bill as a matter of civility, and would shelve it in the other House.

EARL GRANVILLE

asked what Member of the Government had made such a statement?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, that was the inference to be drawn from the resolution of the Government not to commit themselves on the main question of the Bill. The Government were scarcely treating the House with sufficient respect, and until they had made up their minds it would be wise not to proceed further with the Bill.

EARL GREY

said, it appeared to him when the Government said that they intended to support a Bill deeply affecting the interests of the Church of England, and consequently the interests of the nation, they could not afterwards decline to provide some mode for the payment of the salaries which might be necessary. In his opinion, their Lordships were justified in passing the Bill in the shape proposed on the recommendation of a Select Committee. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) said that there was an objection to the mode of payment by fees, because the fees might fail; but, practically, the fees would continue to be paid until Parliament did away with them; and, if they were done away with, Parliament would then be called on to make some other provision for the object. Either the fees must continue to be collected, or else provision must be made for the payment of these salaries when the Bill entered the Commons. Nothing was more important for the welfare of the Church and of the nation than that the noble Earl should be supported in getting rid of the expensive mode of trying causes in these Ecclesiastical Courts.

LORD WESTBURY

said, the great object of the measure was to relieve suitors of the large sums of money which were now levied upon them under different denominations in the shape of fees, and which amounted, on the whole, to £72,000 a-year. When the offices fell, their emoluments would fall with them. The object of the Bill was to substitute a staff that would cost £31,800 for a staff that was now costing £71,794, and all would agree that that was a consummation devoutly to be wished for. The fees would continue to be levied until a sufficient number of existing functionaries, secretaries, apparitors, and he knew not what, had died off or were provided for; and the question was how money could be raised to tide over the temporary emergency. It could be done easily unless Government was disposed to consider that an improvement of this kind was to be sacrificed to a miserable economy; but the Government could provide the money required for a time by an Act of Parliament, and £8,000 or £10,000 could be raised by mortgaging the future proceeds of the fund. The latter would be a most degrading course to adopt. It might be found that the appointment of a Judge would relieve the Government in future from an extraordinary mode of supplying vacancies. The proposition that a Bishop should hold the door of a Court, and let no one enter it without his sanction, might have been listened to before the Reformation, but it could not be necessary to discuss it now. If the Government would help them over the stile in the matter of money, in two or three years the difficulty would be removed. The object of the Bill was to relieve the public at large from most oppressive and unjustifiable impositions, and the benefit it would confer on the country would be universally recognized.

On Question? Whether the said (first) clause be added to the Bill? resolved in the negative.

THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

said, he would not now propose the clause relating to the Bishops, but would accept the decision at which the House had just arrived as applying to that one also.

Clause 15 (Compensation to the official principals of Canterbury and York).

THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

again expressed a hope that the House would not assent to the appointment proposed by this Bill. Instead of the measure containing a plan for relieving the people of this country from the payment of enormous fees, it was, in his opinion, a Bill the effect of which would be to continue their payment. It did not constitute two new Judgeships, but employed two which already existed, and who were now sufficiently paid. There was no need for this clause at all.

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

would not insist upon the retention of the clause.

Clause struck out.